LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus VIKRAMBHAI MAGANBHAI CHAUDHARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011) 6 S.C.R. 1096 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. VIKRAMBHAI MAGANBHAI CHAUDHARI (Civil Appeal No. 2602 of 2006) JULY 1, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Service Law - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - r. 29 - Department of Posts C - Disciplinary proceedings against respondent-Postal Assistant - Punishment imposed - Chief Post Master General vide notification dated 29.05.2001 took up the case of the respondent for review ulr. 29(1 )(vi) - Review proceedings challenged - Tribunal quashed notification dt. D 29.05.2001 on the ground that it did not specify any time limit for review - Justification of - Held: Justified - Inasmuch as the Notification dated 29.05.2001 did not specify any time limit within which power under r.29(1)(vi) was exercisable by the authority specified, such Notification was not in terms with r.29 E and the Tribunal was fully justified in quashing the same. The respondent, a M.O. Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts, disobeyed the orders of his superiors by refusing to accept M.O. forms. Departmental action was initiated against the respondent and he was F suspended by an order of the Superintendent of Post Office. However, later, the suspension order of the respondent was revoked and disciplinary action was initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 G whereupon the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of 'Censure' to the respondent. Subsequently, the Chief Post Master General vide notification dated 29.05.2001 took up the case of the H 1096 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. VIKRAMBHAI 1097 MAGANBHAI CHAUDHARI respondent for review under Rule 29(1 )(vi) of the Rules A and directed the Superintendent of Post Office to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under rule 14 of the Rules. Challenging the review proceedings, the respondent filed application before the tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application and also quashed the B notification dated 29.05.2001 on the ground that it did not specify any time limit for review. The order was upheld by the High Court. Hence the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The contention raised by the ASG, that there is no need to specify the period in the Notification authorizing concerned authority to call for the record for any enquiry and revise any order made under the Rules, cannot be accepted. [Para 6] [1102-G] 2. Rule 29(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 indicates c D 6 categories of revisional authorities. While no period is mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 29(1 ), sub- E Clause (v) refers to a period of six months from the date F of order proposed to be revised in cases where the appellate authority seeks to review the order of the disciplinary authority. On the other hand, Clause (vi) confers similar powers on such other authorities which may be specified in that behalf by the President by a general or special order and the said authority has to commence the proceedings within the time prescribed therein. Even though Rule 29(1)(vi) provides that such order shall also specify the time within which the power should be exercised, the fa~t remains that no time limit G has been prescribed in the Notification. The argument that even in the absence of specific period in the Notification in view of Clause (v), the other authority can also exercise such power cannot be accepted. To put it clear, sub-Clause (v) applies to appellate authority and Clause H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A (vi) to any other authority specified by the President by a general or special order for exercising power by the said authority under sub-Clause (vi). There must be specified period and the power can be exercised only within the period so prescribed. [Paras 6, 7] [1102-E-H; B 1103-A-D] 3. Inasmuch as the Notification dated 29.05.2001 has not specified any time limit within which power under Rule 29(1 )(vi) is exercisable by the authority specified, such Notification is not in terms with Rule 29 and the C . Tribunal is fully justified in quashing the same. The High Court has also rightly confirmed the said conclusien by dismissing the Special Application of the appellants and quashing the Notification on the ground that it did not specify the time. l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.